Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 13, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PST

5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
5:03 pm
5:04 pm
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the november 13, 2013, meeting of the board of appeals. the president is chris wong and joined by the vice president.
5:11 pm
and commissioners. to my left it deputy city attorney robert brian heel provide the board that legal advice and the boards legal assistant. we're joined by representatives of the boards administrator and also representing the planning department and planning commission. we have the building inspector as well. will you go over the guidelines >> the board requests that you turn off outline electronic devices. the boards rules appellants and department representatives have 7 minute for cases and 3
5:12 pm
anybody's for rublt. members not foifltd with the parties have up to 3 minutes to address the board approves or disapproves members of the public are asked but not required to submit a business a card when you come up to the podium. the board welcomes our comments and there are survey forms on the left side of the pompous if you have questions please speak to the board staff or call the board office it's located at the 16750 mission street. this meeting is abbreviate live over o on cable channel 78 and
5:13 pm
dvds are available for purchase. thank you for your attention. at this time we'll conduct the swearing in. if you want to - please raise our right hand. please note that any member of the meeting may speak pursuant to the sunset code and do you he seldomly swear or firm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and the whole truth >> i do >> commissioners we learned right before the meeting began that item 4a a rehearing request has bun withdrawn so that matter
5:14 pm
will not be heard this evening. this is for any member of the public that wants to speak on any item not on tonight's calendar. anyone here want to speak seeing none. commissioners >> yeah. last time, we didn't officially congratulate mr. and mrs. sanchez so congratulations on our baby boy. >> any public comment on item 2. seeing none, item 3 is the adaptation for the minutes of octobe october 23rd, 2013, >> i move to adapt. seeing none, on the minutes >> on that motion to adapt the
5:15 pm
october minutes commissioners (calling names) thank you. the minutes are adopted 4 to zero >> so 4a is withdrawn appeal vs. the planning department it's at 1815 protesting the issuance on july 29th to the 1815 stocking stone replace new stairs that you are this matter was continued to allow the opportunity for voting members to be present and it was continued previously to allow time for the planning holder to submit revised times they've
5:16 pm
done that. i'm wondering is there small business here for the permit holder? please step forward >> i'm marilyn. i'm a co- owner and a representative of the 1815 stockton street property. i'm also the permit holder and we respectfully request permission to replace in kind i understand that we meet the code requirements. thank you. thank you. and is there anyone here that on on behalf of the appellant? okay. i think they were here at the last meeting and acknowledged their agreement. i assume there's any public
5:17 pm
comment. so then the matter is submitted xhirgsz. we have a motion? >> at the appeal perhaps to uphold the permit based on the rise plans. >> okay. thank you. and do we have a date of those plans? i think i have it here >> yeah. our stamp is october 16th but the architect date is october 17th. >> so why don't we say the date the architect has on october 17th. >> to uphold the permit of october 17th for the plan stated. on that motion from the vice
5:18 pm
president to uphold the plans (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit t is upheld with revised plans >> thank you. >> so we're on item 6 steven green walls vs. the department of inspection at the presidio avenue to steve of an allegation permit new windows of family room and new fire pit in the a resubmittal of 101876 due to 0 plus or minus 10 day neighborhood that was not sent
5:19 pm
out. commissioners you held a hearing it was continued to allow time for d b i to look at the required exit way. with the president's that consent we can hear from mr. duffey >> right. >> good evening commissions joe duffey. i did go back to the plan check staff that approved the plan previously and on the plans we used an a b bulletin. when i saw that on the plans i saw that wasn't the proper procure because the property line was split it should have been an easement. we had a couple of meetings and involved ron hesitate the chief
5:20 pm
building inspector. we last met with the architect the owner and the contractor as well. so following that meeting and there - wisp looking at options off one exit to the roof-deck. what happened 81 at the first meeting they used a preapplication meeting process with mr. tom the chief building inspector to allow one exit from the roof-deck that was held yesterday. i have a response from ron chief building inspector and basically, the architect used some sections in the code those discussions at the meetings the fact that this building was sprinkled and we had one on the
5:21 pm
roof. the occupant said it would allow 4 additional occupants which the building code allows for a private roof-deck. after that meeting ron tom's response i concur with our chaldean-american agreement the new n f p strirlg system and the new assembly all of which are not required is appropriate in protecting the egress and also the sprinkler system will increase the level of safety on all levels of the house. the sprinklers basically on the construction while the sprinklers wouldn't have been
5:22 pm
required they were put in by the building owner so we give him the credit we don't have many single homes like this. based on the fact it was 3 pointed 6 and surround up to 6 extra people the one exit is enough and a no needs for the second exit. it needs to be resolved in some kind of a civil fashion but we're okay with one exit for the roof-deck. when i looked at the plans he also was congresswoman two windows to two sliding glass doors on the penthouse. that's something we have in the
5:23 pm
equation i noticed the change maybe the board wants to consider that. >> so windows being changed into doors that was not reflected on the plans. it is >> it's not a big change they're in compliance changing windows to sliding glass doors for us it's not the planning department but you may want to look at that. i wanted to bring it to your attention. >> the plans were after the preapplication meeting i noticed
5:24 pm
it. they felt the doors wore going to do work better than the windows. it's another little something that i noticed. i didn't want to be talking about exiting and release latter it has nothing to do with the exit >> what was the egress to the roof. >> there was a single door going if like a when you come up the stairs to get to the top level there's a door that went off to the left the west side one single door and the penthouse area has been windows and now their challenged r be changed to doors. it's a design change i think more than anything. and whatever i definitely the a b 5 needs to be removed from
5:25 pm
this process. we don't want it on the plans it was issued in error but with the one exit from the roof-deck it goes away but if we're going to do another permit we want to get it off any approved documents >> okay. >> thank you. >> so perhaps we can hear from planning and then from the parties. >> good evening planning staff i also saw the updated plans just a few moments ago it was the change on the north parallel area which is not visible from the street so considering the design change it would be
5:26 pm
visible from the street our preservation staff may want to look at that but it's not change any other feature so i believe from quickly looking at it the planning department wouldn't have any issue with changing the windows to doors. >> so from a process prospective your looking at it for the first time and off-the-cuff giving us our opinion to formalize that you'll have to have it goatee our department. >> again, just changing the windows to doors this is a permit that was not involved with an appeal so long as it's in the code that change itself wouldn't change any process. >> okay. thank you. then we can hear from the
5:27 pm
gentleman >> thank you. good evening president and members of the board. i do have copies of this the alternatives that would effect the egress from all the members i can submit to victor to be attached to the record >> yes. have i provided a copy to the - >> if you leave me one more. >> to the palate and the department? no, no, no >> this is the egress. >> oh, the egress. is that something that the departments have received copies of >> yes. i also want to briefly mention the additional alternatives those changes have been provided to the appellants is so they've had those for 5
5:28 pm
weeks about the windows to doors and those were on the plans just before the last hearing and provided going again, a weeks ago to the appellants. so we were pleased in working with chief building inspector ron tom a solution that avoids that staff from having to opine on the issues and having a egress over the property dispute can allow us to move forward and we're asking the special permit for the expansion permit so those provisions can be made part of the permit and the
5:29 pm
appeals over the aspect felt proposed job. i also have copies of that ron tom's letter it's a joint letter that explains the condition a that's being approved by the cohesive inspector rather than the egress and i've brought copies for the record as well >> have you provided a copy of that. >> just got this. >> and you say you just got this today. >> i did the meeting was yesterday with the cohesive building inspector. >> how long has this matter been on calendar? and while she looks that up i'm
5:30 pm
wondering iowa why it took place yesterday >> its hard to schedule those meetings we had the first meeting with ron last week and when this came up tuesday morning was the first valuable time he agreed to i think that monday being a holiday made it difficult. he tried to make sure that there was an opportunity to review this before today's hearing so it doesn't talk up the boards 7, 8, 9 and did the appellant join the meeting as well >> no, in fact, the meeting was there to discuss the question of 85 was the appropriate form to use and it was morphed into something how we be could assure the safety. as the letteric


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on